Mr. Speaker, I too want to address the foreign affairs review from the standpoint of its relationship with and to defence considerations.
As we have heard before in this place, the end of the cold war and the reduction of the antagonism it engendered between the two superpowers has unhappily not resulted in a world that could look forward to an extended peaceful coexistence.
The world today is probably more volatile and unstable than it was when the Warsaw pact and the iron curtain were alive and well. As a result there continues to be a need for effective defence forces and co-operation in defence matters between like minded people.
There are those who would disagree with this assessment, those who think that Canada should show the world the way by dramatically reducing the Canadian Armed Forces and concentrating those that are left on peacekeeping and community assistance projects.
As idealistic as I am, I cannot agree with this philosophy. Canadians enjoy an excellent way of life and an excellent standard of living. One of the reasons this is so is that over the years we have been willing to commit Canadian support to assist in maintaining democracy and freedom not just at home but in almost every part of the world.
As my colleague pointed out earlier, we are involved in several such endeavours at this moment. Unhappily there are those who mistakenly think that the people in the armed forces tend to be war minded and supportive of belligerent or strong arm policies.
I am here to assure members that while they may be many things, Canadian service men and women are not stupid. They are fully aware that if as a result of deliberate escalation or inadvertent error, a shooting war should develop they as trained members of the armed forces will be first in the line of fire.
No, the men and women of the Canadian forces are very much in favour of keeping the world at peace. They also know that the awareness developed between people in co-operative defence forces often spills over into many other aspects of international relationships.
Thus defence considerations can have considerable impact on foreign relations. As evidence let us examine some of the relationships that have come about as a result of our participation in two world wars, the Korean war, NATO, NORAD, the gulf war and other co-operative military efforts.
In so doing, we find that these affiliations have enabled or helped to enable a level of trust and comradeship which has led to a better relationship between our countries, to increased interest in our problems, to more understanding and willingness to accept our position even on matters totally unrelated to things military and finally to increase trade and co-operation between the nations concerned.
For instance, although it is now 50 years since Canadian forces liberated Holland toward the end of the second world war, there is still a special place and warmth in the minds of Netherlanders when they think of, relate to and deal with Canadians today. This special relationship extends beyond those who were physically there during the liberation. It has been taught in school and passed down, so that no matter the age that good feeling is there.
This does not mean that the hard-nosed Dutch businessman or woman will not attempt to drive the hardest bargain and extract the best deal when dealing with his or her Canadian counterpart. It does mean that there will be an underlying warmth and some assurance of fair play in the negotiations.
Moving north, our relationship with Norway is favourably affected and influenced by the many Norwegians who took their flying training in Canada during World War II. Not only did they take their flying here, many of them took Canadian wives back to Norway with them after the war.
Unquestionably, these experiences have resulted in a far better relationship between our two countries than would have prevailed had they not occurred. These relationships have been further deepened and strengthened by our mutual participation in NATO. In fact, it would be fair to say that Canadian defence forces operating with or in some cases against other countries have substantially enhanced Canada's stature in the world.
While we are examining how we should shape and conduct our foreign affairs, it would be an expensive and ill-advised oversight to overlook the lucrative opportunities and benefits to be achieved through military co-operation.
Ideally this foreign policy review should have been completed prior to the commencement of any defence policy review. After all, defence policy should be a logical and supportive extension of foreign policy.
Because it has been necessary to convene and conduct these two studies concurrently, it is vitally important that the two committees work closely and co-operatively with each other, exchanging information and keeping updated as the reviews progress.
Moving away from North America and Europe for a moment, I am certain that in their considerations the joint standing committee on foreign affairs and international trade will appreciate that not all democracies are the same and that unlike Canada, in many countries the military is an integral part of government. For example, this is so in Tanzania.
When Tanzania was first establishing independence and requested assistance, Canada dispatched a Canadian forces training team to Tanzania to carry out in-country training there and brought the Tanzanian peoples defence force members to Canada to attend Canadian military training schools here.
Many of those Tanzanian trainees are now experienced senior officers who have considerable influence in their government and who still harbour feelings of warmth and respect toward Canada as a result of their experience with our military personnel. Although now on a much smaller scale, this co-operation continues today.
Make no mistake. These people are Tanzanians first and foremost but a good relationship has been established which can positively influence any negotiations between our two countries.
Considering our interest in and increasing trade with the Pacific rim, it would seem appropriate for the committee to look carefully at the utility of establishing mutually advantageous defence relationships with the countries there. The same rationale applies to our relations with Central and South America.
Whether it be an exchange of military attachés, making training teams available, or opening Canadian forces training schools to their use, good military contracts are an excellent way to improve understanding and co-operation between countries.
One of the often overlooked benefits Canada reaps from Canadian forces involvement overseas is the ambassadorial role that our personnel play. They and in turn our country are liked, respected and in many cases emulated by those they encounter. Also, because these military interrelationships occur across the rank spectrum and thus involve all social walks of life rather than just the relatively high diplomatic level, the effects are far more broadly based.
The results, advantages and benefits of such programs can often far exceed the costs of participation.
To a large extent Canada's prosperity and way of life depends upon international trade and thus on world stability. No one can say that world stability is totally dependent on military defence or assistance pacts. But history has shown that such agreements and particularly those in which Canada has been involved have fostered a better, more predictable and more secure world. In conclusion, while it would be a mistake for the foreign affairs review to concentrate too much attention on defence related
activities, it would be an even bigger mistake to overlook their value.
To reiterate, it is vital that there be continuing close contact between the joint standing committee on foreign affairs and the joint standing committee on defence.